Wide v. Narrows Pt 1: Kinds of "Narrow"

[Kyle Harris]

"It's too narrow."
"It's so wide, you can hit it anywhere."

Et. al.

Most people probably just take these statements at face value (so little). But there are *kinds* of narrow and their demands on golf say much about the why the person may be making the statement.

I got the motivation here in speaking with a friend of mine that has a connection to Brookside Country Club in Columbus and he was lamenting some tree removal because now players weren't challenged off the tee. A typical lament.

The kinds of narrow as I see it, ranked in order of my perceived difficulty and what is responsible in CAPS:

1: OB Both sides, under 75 yard wide corridor - Difficulty is stroke and distance. MUST be accurate. DESIGN
2: Lost Ball both sides, under 75 yard wide corridor - same as above. MAINTENANCE

3: OB One Side, Penalty Area other, under 75 yard wide corridor - Can advance the ball with a penalty drop if correct side is missed. DESIGN
4: Lost ball one side, Penalty Area other, under 75 wide corridor - Same as above but MAINTENANCE

5: Penalty Area Both Sides, under 75 yard wide corridor: Can advance the ball with a penalty drop if missing the corridor DESIGN
6: Penalty area one side, trees other, under 75 yard wide corridor: Can advance the ball with penalty drop on other side, likely punch out on the other DESIGN
7: Tree corridor on both sides, under 75 yards wide: Likely punch out both sides
8: Penalty Area One side, Playble rough-length other side, under 75 wide corridor: Can advance the ball with penalty drop if missed to penalty area side, chance to advance the ball with no penalty drop if missed to rough side DESIGN
9: Playable rough-length grass both sides, under 40 yard wide corridor: Chance to advance the ball with no penalty drop if missed. MAINTENANCE


It's curious to me that players often decry the addition of width toward the end of this spectrum where the shot cost (for ideal subsequent play) is under 1. I made the point to my friend that most high handicappers make their own trouble and they really aren't breaking the sport if removing something that forced them to make a 6 or 7 on a hole is now allowing them to make a 5 or 6.

The other curious rhetorical point to me is how many people defend poor design or maintenance choices toward the top of the list by suggesting the RULE is broken because the architect or club chose to apply the situation to their golf courses. The vast majority of golf courses have a "narrow" corridor starting at point 6 at worst. The rule is irrelevant if the situation never presents itself.

[Kyle Harris]

There's a third dimension I am ignoring for now (more on this later). 

[Ian Andrew]

I played Harbour Town as my warm up round for my matches the last couple of years. I also played courses like Tree Farm, Old Barnwell and Chechessee Creek too. I like them all and that does cover a cross-spectrum of width.


I really enjoy Harbour Town. I don't typically go for narrow courses, but its narrow sometimes and not really narrow most of the time. It's a case of how the trees have been managed. Kudos to the staff. It's a nice change from super wide corridors. I personally don't think narrow is an issue for play, "IF" finding and hitting recovery shots is a simple process. 


Perhaps I'm just desperate for something else, because I would not have said this 20 years ago. But even a good thing done far too often, eventually loses its appeal.

[Kyle Harris]

Thanks for the reply Ian.

Harbour Town is near the top of my "must play" list for these reasons.

Another one that is often derided for being too narrow I am playing on Monday: Orange Tree

Your last statement, I think, is indicative of the change currently happening in golf architecture tastes.

"Narrow" too, seems to have a level of acceptance in terms of how the penalty is applied. Orange Tree doesn't have as much Point 5/6 and above narrowness as one would think given the level of criticism but it almost exclusively has narrowness with Point #7 such that the Point 5 and 6 types feel excessive to some.

FWIW, the penalty areas are all on shorter Par 5s or 4s - some could say they are half par holes - and add an element of tension.

I think the Orange Tree criticisms are over the top. It's a better golf course, to my eye, than some of it's more famous neighbors.

[Michael Felton]

Kyle - one thing I would add to this is if you have two holes - one is 70 yards from OB to OB (so bucket 1), but that's the only trouble, the other is 35 yards from treeline to treeline, but underneath the trees is clear and you'll find your ball (bucket 7). The latter plays much narrower than the first. The other thing I have found impacts things is how narrow it is near the tee. I've played courses where you're threading the needle through trees. Anything that you miss 20 yards to the side can catch a branch and drop 40 yards ahead of you. That winds up playing similarly to a penalty area further up the hole.


Depending on your shot shape you may also have a situation where it's bucket 8, with the penalty area on the right, but there's a tree near the tee on the left that forces you to play out to the right. If you draw it you've got the whole world to hit it into, but if you're a fader, it's super narrow.

[Kyle Harris]

Michael Felton,

You raise good points and an element that adds some buckets maybe.

One unique hole I've found is at Adena (was the 3rd, now the 12th) in Ocala, FL. Only hole I know of where you play through an actual tunnel of trees. The tree canopy is high enough and broad enough that playing through it is rather compelling.

That type of narrow is the only one that really influences shot *selection* interestingly.

[Matt Schoolfield]

1: OB Both sides, under 75 yard wide corridor - Difficulty is stroke and distance. MUST be accurate. DESIGN
2: Lost Ball both sides, under 75 yard wide corridor - same as above. MAINTENANCE

3: OB One Side, Penalty Area other, under 75 yard wide corridor - Can advance the ball with a penalty drop if correct side is missed. DESIGN
4: Lost ball one side, Penalty Area other, under 75 wide corridor - Same as above but MAINTENANCE

5: Penalty Area Both Sides, under 75 yard wide corridor: Can advance the ball with a penalty drop if missing the corridor DESIGN
6: Penalty area one side, trees other, under 75 yard wide corridor: Can advance the ball with penalty drop on other side, likely punch out on the other DESIGN
7: Tree corridor on both sides, under 75 yards wide: Likely punch out both sides
8: Penalty Area One side, Playble rough-length other side, under 75 wide corridor: Can advance the ball with penalty drop if missed to penalty area side, chance to advance the ball with no penalty drop if missed to rough side DESIGN
9: Playable rough-length grass both sides, under 40 yard wide corridor: Chance to advance the ball with no penalty drop if missed. MAINTENANCE

I really like this analysis, and want to give it the attention it deserves but I can't right now. I'm going to add an image I made for a blog post about visualizing risk-and-reward on the golf course that I think can illustrate the point you are trying to make:

Here, the risk is the red gradient (more red more risk for this target), and the reward is the black gradient (more black, more penalty for this result). Here the black on the left side is OB.



I'm not entirely sure if I'm right about what you're saying, but I think using this visualization method should illustrate your point about the different risk profiles of a "narrow" golf hole. I hope I'm not wasting everyone's time here.

[Carl Johnson]

I'm personally a little tired of this subject (nothing to do with Golf Club Atlas), but what I think it should come down to is the architect's decision about how the hole should play to suit all skill sets, keeping in mind that the purpose of golf is recreation, to have some fun (this does not apply to professional golf entertainers, of course).  I don't see pat answer for all situations.  Now if the architect says he's designing only with the high handicapper, or the low handicapper in mind, so be it, but I don't believe most architects are given marching orders to take extreme approaches.

[Kyle Harris]

Carl Johnson,

I'm not sure how one can design for a subset of golfer that goes into every swing not exactly knowing what's going to happen with their golf shot.

High-handicappers create their own trouble.

About all the golf architect can do is make sure water isn't overtly in play and avoidable. All the superintendent can do is make sure they can find their golf ball when it goes too far off line. The committee can mark areas where balls could be lost as Penalty Areas so the high handicapper can at least advance.

[Kyle Harris]

Matt S.,

Risk gradients are certainly adjacent to the conversation.

The conversation that got me thinking along these lines was based in a friend's comments on tree removal and how it removed "skill" and "challenge" from the sport in order to accomodate high-handicappers.

I suggested that the width was adding challenging options that better players likely could execute and should attempt because someone in the field would pull it off.

[Sean_A]

1: OB Both sides, under 75 yard wide corridor - Difficulty is stroke and distance. MUST be accurate. DESIGN
2: Lost Ball both sides, under 75 yard wide corridor - same as above. MAINTENANCE

3: OB One Side, Penalty Area other, under 75 yard wide corridor - Can advance the ball with a penalty drop if correct side is missed. DESIGN
4: Lost ball one side, Penalty Area other, under 75 wide corridor - Same as above but MAINTENANCE

5: Penalty Area Both Sides, under 75 yard wide corridor: Can advance the ball with a penalty drop if missing the corridor DESIGN
6: Penalty area one side, trees other, under 75 yard wide corridor: Can advance the ball with penalty drop on other side, likely punch out on the other DESIGN
7: Tree corridor on both sides, under 75 yards wide: Likely punch out both sides
8: Penalty Area One side, Playble rough-length other side, under 75 wide corridor: Can advance the ball with penalty drop if missed to penalty area side, chance to advance the ball with no penalty drop if missed to rough side DESIGN
9: Playable rough-length grass both sides, under 40 yard wide corridor: Chance to advance the ball with no penalty drop if missed. MAINTENANCE

I really like this analysis, and want to give it the attention it deserves but I can't right now. I'm going to add an image I made for a blog post about visualizing risk-and-reward on the golf course that I think can illustrate the point you are trying to make:

Here, the risk is the red gradient (more red more risk for this target), and the reward is the black gradient (more black, more penalty for this result). Here the black on the left side is OB.



I'm not entirely sure if I'm right about what you're saying, but I think using this visualization method should illustrate your point about the different risk profiles of a "narrow" golf hole. I hope I'm not wasting everyone's time here.

The illustration needs width and length yardage. It looks like you have added an additional problem…moving the ball right to left to gain a full open shit to the green. But I don’t know for sure without yardage info.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Watching golf yesterday, the tournament formerly known as the Honda Classic, made me think about this thread.

Given its tough reputation, and the fact that 35 players are currently at 10 under par or better with one round left to go, are modern players better equipped to handle narrowness?  And if so given how out of fashion "tight and tough" has become is the pendulum due to swing back the other way?

[Kyle Harris]

Kalen,

I think the pendulum started to swing back around the time Mammoth Dunes opened.

One thing that is unassaible about modern players is that they are much better about managing risk on the golf course, categorically, than in eras past. Until maybe twenty years ago it was only the upper echelon of PGA Tour players that had both the physical gifts and risk management saavy to make it.

We can debate the causes of the ability of the modern bottom PGA Tour level player to derisk a round (or 4) but it ultimately boils down to one decision or one shot made in context that matters.

Tour players will always de-risk a golf hole no matter how narrow it is. The art of interest is in how that narrowness is presented and when.

[Jim Sherma]

The major change in pro golf as it relates to de-risking lies in the dispersion patterns for near misses to the sweet spot. With the old spinny ball and persimmon/blade clubs the effective hitting area was small enough to differentiate between a generational ball striker/a very good ball striker/and a journeyman. Nicklaus could de-risk more effectively than others because of that. Modern technology has eliminated most of the difference, if not all of it, between perfect and just quite good contact. This allows the entire tour (and all the way down the food chain to very accomplished amateurs) to strategically play like the great ball strikers of the wound ball era.

[Kyle Harris]

The major change in pro golf as it relates to de-risking lies in the dispersion patterns for near misses to the sweet spot. With the old spinny ball and persimmon/blade clubs the effective hitting area was small enough to differentiate between a generational ball striker/a very good ball striker/and a journeyman. Nicklaus could de-risk more effectively than others because of that. Modern technology has eliminated most of the difference, if not all of it, between perfect and just quite good contact. This allows the entire tour (and all the way down the food chain to very accomplished amateurs) to strategically play like the great ball strikers of the wound ball era.

Tech. And FAR more focus on physical fitness.


Even the bottom of a Tour field could out push-up a peak Gary Player. This isn’t even remotely debatable.

[Sean_A]

The major change in pro golf as it relates to de-risking lies in the dispersion patterns for near misses to the sweet spot. With the old spinny ball and persimmon/blade clubs the effective hitting area was small enough to differentiate between a generational ball striker/a very good ball striker/and a journeyman. Nicklaus could de-risk more effectively than others because of that. Modern technology has eliminated most of the difference, if not all of it, between perfect and just quite good contact. This allows the entire tour (and all the way down the food chain to very accomplished amateurs) to strategically play like the great ball strikers of the wound ball era.

Tech. And FAR more focus on physical fitness.


Even the bottom of a Tour field could out push-up a peak Gary Player. This isn’t even remotely debatable.

Important stuff that always gets overlooked:

Far better medical care.

Far better travel and hotels. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

The major change in pro golf as it relates to de-risking lies in the dispersion patterns for near misses to the sweet spot. With the old spinny ball and persimmon/blade clubs the effective hitting area was small enough to differentiate between a generational ball striker/a very good ball striker/and a journeyman. Nicklaus could de-risk more effectively than others because of that. Modern technology has eliminated most of the difference, if not all of it, between perfect and just quite good contact. This allows the entire tour (and all the way down the food chain to very accomplished amateurs) to strategically play like the great ball strikers of the wound ball era.

Tech. And FAR more focus on physical fitness.


Even the bottom of a Tour field could out push-up a peak Gary Player. This isn’t even remotely debatable.

Both points very valid.
I will add more skilled athletic players choosing golf  due to Tiger effect AND improved teaching skill leading to far more good players.
Additionally,rather than previously a player building his swing around earlier equipment limitations of wood and balata a spinny high speed steep swinger now simply optimizes with a lower launch lower spin club/ball.


Years of swing/skill set accumulation bypassed by one day with a good fitter-thus more players with more serviceable skills.
Especially with the drivers previously the hardest club to hit.


It's just harder than ever to allow great players to separate themselves due to so many being able to access what once a very elusive and exclusive skill.


And when you do present a thoughtful skill separating test of less generic commodity skills..
Dog legs, vertical hazards suggesting ballflight shape, reverse camber fairways and/or holes routed across firm crosswinded fairways demanding shot shape, tilted greens with enough slope to influence first bounce (rather than stimp induced roll) ,....
an entire generation equipped with an arguably  limited yet generally highly effective arsenal of store bought "skill" will use their tyranny of the minority to degrade the course and its defense/design features espousing babble about width  and "choices".


This quite frankly DOES allow a high speed player to generally "hit it anywhere far" as I have witnessed on many modern width and scale courses.

[Michael Felton]

This quite frankly DOES allow a high speed player to generally "hit it anywhere far" as I have witnessed on many modern width and scale courses.

It's definitely true that a lot of what is currently trendy plays into the hands of the bombers. Width and tree removal make it easier to bomb it. Trees make it difficult because trees stop the ball no matter how hard you've hit it.

[Thomas Dai]

"De-risking". Nice phrase. Not sure the extent to which many amateurs play with it in mind but at the elite level I can understand the approach.
As an aside, to what extent are conditions a factor here?
Seems like the most interesting, challenging elite level golf is played in poor weather conditions? Other sports too, motor racing being an example.
Maybe if the ground and weather etc conditions weren't of such a consistently high level things might be a bit more challenging with the elite cream player being able to make more out of such circumstances and rise to the top more often than the slightly lessor player? And of course the events that elite level players are participating in are mostly scheduled for the best weather period/season.
atb

[Bradley Anderson]

Kyle,


If you ever get the chance to play Camargo, the fear of width will register for you, especially on the Par three holes.

[Jason Topp]

I recently played a tree lined course that I would have derided as one-dimensional 10 years ago but found I really enjoyed it.   Now, for me, such courses are a change from almost every course I regularly play.   It is fun to try and hit a punch slice recovery shot from ground rendered bare by a lack of sunlight.  There is a reward for accuracy off the tee.  Shade feels good when it is hot.   It is difficult to judge the wind when trees make it swirl. 


While laudable, tree removal efforts have been so prevalent that some courses that buck the trend are welcome in my book. 

[Kyle Harris]

I recently played a tree lined course that I would have derided as one-dimensional 10 years ago but found I really enjoyed it.   Now, for me, such courses are a change from almost every course I regularly play.   It is fun to try and hit a punch slice recovery shot from ground rendered bare by a lack of sunlight.  There is a reward for accuracy off the tee.  Shade feels good when it is hot.   It is difficult to judge the wind when trees make it swirl. 


While laudable, tree removal efforts have been so prevalent that some courses that buck the trend are welcome in my book.

See me other "Wide" thread that is threatening to get to the second page.... I mention this.

[Michael Felton]

I recently played a tree lined course that I would have derided as one-dimensional 10 years ago but found I really enjoyed it.   Now, for me, such courses are a change from almost every course I regularly play.   It is fun to try and hit a punch slice recovery shot from ground rendered bare by a lack of sunlight.  There is a reward for accuracy off the tee.  Shade feels good when it is hot.   It is difficult to judge the wind when trees make it swirl. 


While laudable, tree removal efforts have been so prevalent that some courses that buck the trend are welcome in my book.

Variety is the spice of life after all

[Tags:]

Tags: